SECOND DIVISION

								NOVEMBER 6, 2001	

No. 1-99-2593

In re April C., Amy C., and Anna C., Minors and Respondents-Appellees

-------------------------------------

(The People of the State of Illinois,

		Petitioner-Appellee,

	v.

Ernie C.,

		Respondent-Appellant).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Cook County

Honorable

Paul P. Biebel,

Judge Presiding.

	JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the opinion of the court:

	The State filed petitions to adjudicate minors April C., Amy C., and Anna C., wards of the court.  The circuit court found the

minors were abused pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705

ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 1998)) due to physical abuse and excessive corporal punishment by their father, respondent Ernie C.,

and due to a substantial risk of physical injury.  A dispositional

hearing was held and parents Kathleen C. and respondent Ernie C.

were found to be unwilling, unable, and unfit to parent the minors,

who were then adjudicated wards of the court.  Respondent now

appeals, maintaining that the trial court erred in finding him

unable, unwilling, and unfit to parent the minors and erred in

allowing certain testimony at the dispositional hearing.1

	On June 13, 1997, the State filed petitions for the

adjudication of wardship regarding respondents 11-year-old April

C., 8-year-old Amy C., and 6-year-old Anna C. (collectively, the

children or the minors), who had all been taken into custody two

days earlier.  The petitions alleged that Anna and Amy had been

subjected to physical abuse and excessive corporal punishment and

were at substantial risk of physical injury.  The petition for

April alleged that she was at substantial risk of physical injury. 

A case management conference order dated August 27, 1997, indicates

that the parties were granted leave to amend the petition regarding

April to add allegations of physical abuse and excessive corporal

punishment.

	On October 1, 1997, an adjudication hearing was held.  At the

hearing, the evidence consisted of a stipulation entered into by

the parties.  Respondent and Kathleen C. were represented by

different counsel.  According to the stipulation:

	1. Respondent and Kathleen C. were the natural parents of

April, Amy, and Anna;

	2. Respondent and Kathleen C. were custodial at all relevant

times;

	3. Since September 1996, respondent and Kathleen C. had also

had custody of respondent's stepdaughter's children Jacoba,

Angelica, and Guandensio2;

	4. While in the custody of respondent and Kathleen C., Jacoba

sustained a fractured transverse left femur;

	5. Respondent admitted to forcefully holding Jacoba down on

the toilet seat in an effort to potty train;

	6. Respondent and Kathleen C. stated to doctors and nurses at

Children's Memorial Hospital that an explanation for the injury

could have been that Jacoba fell down a flight of stairs or fell

off a toy;

	7.  If called to testify, Dr. Marianne Radkowski of Children's

Memorial Hospital would state that the injury to Jacoba could have

occurred during toilet-training if respondent placed his hands on

the child's thigh and used an extreme amount of force to push the

child on the toilet seat.  Dr. Radkowski would further testify that

the type of fracture sustained by the child would not occur from

falling down the stairs or falling off a toy.  Dr. Radkowski would

also state that a bone scan was completed and that this was an

instance of abuse;

	8. A bone scan completed at Children's Memorial Hospital

revealed that Jacoba also had healed fractures to his right radius

and ulna;

	9. Based on Jacoba's healed fractures, fractured left femur,

and lack of a plausible explanation by respondent and Kathleen C.,

the multidisciplinary team at Children's Memorial Hospital ruled

that the findings were consistent with physical abuse;

	10. If called to testify, Susan Garner, a social worker at the minors' school, would state that (a) there had been a couple of

incidents regarding respondent that had caused her concern; (b) in

or about May of 1997, Guandensio came to school with a bloody lip;

(c) Kathleen C. told her Guandensio had bitten his lip when

respondent forcefully kept the minor on the toilet; and (d) on or

about May 21, 1997, respondent was picking Anna up at school when

he was observed grabbing her by the neck;

	11. If called to testify, Nicholas Conway would state that

while speaking with Kathleen C. on June 9, 1997, she told him that

respondent had a temper, that she was aware of the neck incident

with Anna; and that she had observed respondent holding Guandensio

down on the toilet seat, and that it was excessive and was how

Guandensio had bitten his lip;

	12. April and Amy had made statements that they got whippings

from respondent with a belt, board, or a hand when they were in

trouble; and

	13. The medical records from Mount Sinai for April, Anna, Amy,

Guandensio, and Angelica and from Children's Memorial Hospital for

Jacoba were entered into evidence.

	The parties also stipulated to a finding that April, Amy, and

Anna had been physically abused by respondent, had been subjected

to excessive corporal punishment, and were at substantial risk of

injury.

	Based on the stipulated evidence, the court found that April,

Amy, and Anna were abused in that they had been physically abused by respondent, subjected to excessive corporal punishment by

respondent, and were at substantial risk of physical injury.

	A dispositional hearing commenced on March 18, 1999.  At the

time of the hearing, April was 13, Amy was 10, and Anna was 8 years

old.  At the dispositional hearing, the following evidence was

adduced.

	Julie Dvorsky, a licensed clinical social worker with a

master's degree in social work, testified that she was employed by

Hephzibah Children's Association and had been assigned to work with

the C. family since August 21, 1997.  The case first came into the

system when respondent's grandchild Jacoba was found with a bone

fracture.  Several older healed fractures were discovered on Jacoba

as well.  During a home visit in August 1997, respondent explained

to Dvorsky that he was trying to keep Jacoba on a toilet-training

seat and heard a crack while pushing down on him.

	The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) referred

the family to receive psychological examinations and a bonding

assessment in September 1997.  Following the psychological

assessment, it was recommended that respondent get individual

psychotherapy, vocational training, a bonding assessment, and a

neurological evaluation to rule out narcolepsy.  It was recommended

that Kathleen C. get individual psychotherapy, couples or marital

counseling, continue working toward her GED, and join a women's

support group.

	The September 1997 bonding assessment recommended that the children not return home due to the psychological issues affecting

each parent.  The assessment noted an apparent lack of emotional

"connectedness" between respondent, Kathleen C., and the children. 

The assessment contained statements made by all three children to

the effect that they missed their parents and wanted to return home

and noted that the children were respectful of their parents and

well-behaved.  The assessment described respondent and Kathleen

C.'s relationship with each other as being of particular concern

due to suspected past physical abuse of Kathleen C. by respondent

and noted that Kathleen C. "seemed incapable at the present time

[of] modifying her husband's behavior."

	Through DCFS, both parents were referred to Mary and Tom Leo

and Associates for individual counseling.  The issues addressed in

therapy included anger management and corporal punishment.  Dvorsky

acknowledged that up until June 1998, the reports from Mary and Tom

Leo and Associates expressed hope that respondent and Kathleen C.

would make significant progress in therapy.  Dvorsky testified that

the hoped-for progress had not occurred.  A June 1998 report from

Mary and Tom Leo and Associates stated that many of the sessions

with respondent and Kathleen C. had been struggles and that both

respondent and Kathleen C. seemed to believe that, with the

exception of Leroy Yates, a counselor the parents had sought out on

their own, all of the professionals involved in the case were part

of a conspiracy to prevent reunification with the children.  At the

time of the hearing, respondent and Kathleen C. were still participating in individual psychotherapy sessions on a monthly

basis.  The therapists felt the family needed to be involved in

family therapy in order to make any further progress.

	According to Dvorsky, family therapy was attempted twice.  It

was first attempted in October 1997, but was discontinued after one

month because the therapist felt no progress was being made and

that the parents needed to focus on their own individual

psychological issues in that they were coming into the family

sessions angry and were not focusing on the goals established in

therapy.  The therapist told Dvorsky the children were "frozen"

during the sessions and unable to speak.  The therapist also stated

that this was one of the "most concerning" families he had seen.

	Family therapy was attempted again in June 1998.  The

sessions, which included just the children and Kathleen C., were

again discontinued after a month because the therapist found

Kathleen C. to be "inappropriate."  As an example, Dvorsky related

that Kathleen C. had walked out of the session while Anna was

relating information on a life issue to her.  When Kathleen C.

reentered the session, the girls "completely shut down."  The

children refused to bring forth issues to their mother out of fear

she would tell respondent, and April threatened to run away rather

than attend family therapy sessions.  According to Dvorsky, as of

the date of the disposition hearing (March 1999), the children were

not ready to attempt family therapy again.

	Respondent and Kathleen C. attended a parenting class in September 1997.  Respondent wore sunglasses and fell asleep during

the sessions, but Kathleen C. participated more.  Both parents

completed the class and further classes were recommended. 

Respondent and Kathleen C. took a child management class in 1998. 

According to Dvorsky, that class went better.

	Respondent and Kathleen C. participated in a clinical

evaluation on November 2, 1998.  The psychiatrist was concerned

about respondent's ability to parent the children due to

psychiatric issues affecting him.  The psychiatrist diagnosed Ernie

C. as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, with a

secondary diagnosis of childhood physical abuse and neglect and an

anti-social personality disorder with schizotypal features,

resulting in social anxiety and problems with interpersonal

relationships.  The psychiatrist recommended respondent be put on

anxiety medication.

	In addition, the evaluating psychiatrist noted that Kathleen

C. did not acknowledge that physical abuse had occurred in the

home.  According to the psychiatrist, Kathleen C. "did not

acknowledge that there was a substantial likelihood that her

husband could have been the perpetrator [of the injury to Jacoba]

yet when [respondent] was interviewed separately he readily

admit[ted] that he was the perpetrator in this incident."  The

psychiatrist found Kathleen C.'s evasiveness and denial that

respondent could have been the perpetrator to be of concern.

	Respondent and Kathleen C. had supervised visitation with the children from August 1997 through December 1998.  Initially, both

parents, but particularly respondent, would be very hostile and

negative during the visits.  Respondent and Kathleen C. would

interrogate the children about the foster home and tell the

children that the agency was trying to adopt them out and was not

working toward returning them home.  Kathleen C. in particular

would ask questions about the foster home in a sarcastic manner and

make negative comments about the foster parents and other children

in the home.  The children informed Dvorsky that Kathleen C.'s

questioning made them uncomfortable.  Although Dvorsky acknowledged

that Kathleen C. acted more appropriately when respondent was not

present at visitation, Dvorsky did not believe Kathleen C. was

utilizing any of the knowledge gained from parenting classes in her

visits with the children.  In November 1997, a Hephzibah employee

reported that respondent made an aggressive move toward her and the

police were called, resulting in a temporary suspension of

visitation.

	In December 1998, Hephzibah decided that it would have at

least three workers present during each supervised visit because

respondent and Kathleen C. were attempting to whisper to the

children so that supervisors could not hear and because the

children's behavior before and after the visits was causing

concern.  The children would be angry and break items in the foster

home before and after the visits and Amy would wet the bed.  During

visits, the children were very flat and did not show much emotion.  The children were much more talkative both before and after the

visits.  During visits where only Kathleen C. and the children were

present, the children appeared much more comfortable and the

interactions more free in nature.  Dvorsky had observed some of the

visits and had seen the children frightened, especially when

respondent had been hostile toward workers.  Dvorsky testified that

the children's therapist recommended that the children not be

returned home and believed the children would make more progress if

visitation with the parents were limited further.

	Anna, who was eight years old at the time of the hearing, had

begun to act out sexually in the foster home in May 1998.  She had

asked who was going to pat her vagina and who was going to pull the

black stuff out of Amy's vagina, and she had masturbated in front

of a younger child in the foster home and had attempted to get that

child involved in the masturbation.  None of the other minors in

the foster home had been acting out sexually.  Dvorsky acknowledged

that there was no evidence that respondent was the perpetrator of

sexual abuse toward Anna.  Although various reports in the record

entered into evidence expressed suspicions that the girls had been

sexually abused, there was no evidence of sexual abuse at the time

the dispositional hearing commenced.

	Dvorsky testified that up until December 1998, the goal of the

case was to return the children to the home.  In December 1998, the

goal was changed to substitute care upon a determination that the

home environment was not appropriate.

	Dvorsky testified that, in her opinion, respondent and

Kathleen C. were not able and fit to parent their children.  She

testified that she was concerned respondent did not have his anger

issues under control and that Kathleen C. did not have the ability

to protect the children from him.  Respondent had been volatile and

threatening during visitation, and Kathleen C. had not attempted to

intervene on behalf of the children.  In addition, Kathleen C. had

not acknowledged the abuse suffered by the children via respondent. 

Dvorsky testified that she did not believe the children trusted

Kathleen C. or felt that she would protect them and keep them safe. 

In Dvorsky's opinion, it would be in the best interests of the

minors if DCFS were appointed with the right to place the children. 

Dvorsky stated that the children were together in a nonrelative

foster home where the foster parent was committed to permanency for

the children.  Dvorsky recommended that permanency be established

in order for the children to feel more safe and stable.

	Lysa Seghetti, a DCFS social worker, testified that she had

been assigned to the case from the time it came into the system

until shortly before the dispositional hearing.

	Seghetti referred respondent for domestic violence counseling

in January 1999.  Respondent informed her that he wanted to confer

with his attorney regarding the referral.  Seghetti had not heard

back from respondent regarding the referral at the time of the

disposition hearing.  She was also aware of referrals for

respondent for a neuropsychological examination in early 1998 and in December 1998.  Respondent had not followed through on the first

referral and she did not know if he had followed through on the

second.  Seghetti referred respondent for a psychiatric follow-up

in February 1999.  Seghetti had not received any information

indicating respondent had followed through on that referral.

	Seghetti had contact with respondent's daughter Molly, whose

three children were also in the care of respondent and Kathleen C.

when the case came into the system.  It was Molly's son Jacoba who

had sustained a fracture while in the care of respondent and

Kathleen C.  In December 1998, Molly informed Seghetti that when

she was a child, respondent began molesteding her.  Later, respondent hadbegan

to

have

intercourse with her.  The sexual abuse went on until Molly was an

adolescent and left the home.  Seghetti found Molly to be credible. 

Seghetti found the information to be of concern because April, the

oldest of respondent and Kathleen C.'s three children, had told

Seghetti that she would run away if family therapy resumed and

reported that she had had thoughts of running away since she was

five years old.  Seghetti testified that when the case first came

into the system, the children were sent to the Under the Rainbow

Program at Mount Sinai for a five-day evaluation for physical

abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect.  The children were diagnosed as

having been physically abused by respondent.  Seghetti acknowledged

that the evaluation found no evidence of sexual abuse.

	Seghetti testified that at one court hearing, respondent

became aggressive with her and she had to summon a sheriff to intervene.  On two occasions, respondent told her she was "evil"

and "from the devil."  Kathleen C. had also accused Seghetti of

working with the devil and informed her that Jesus was going to get

her.

	Seghetti concurred with Dvorsky's recommendation that the

State be appointed as guardian for the children.  She did not

believe it was in the children's best interests to return home to

their parents, as she had concerns regarding their safety and

whether Kathleen C. could actually protect them from respondent. 

Finally, she did not believe respondent had received all of the

services necessary to make the home environment safe with him

present.  Seghetti testified that Kathleen C. could probably parent

the children in the absence of respondent but she had grave

concerns regarding the relationship of respondent and Kathleen C.

and Kathleen C.'s ability to sever that relationship.

	Tracy Handalman, a DCFS social worker with a master's degree

in education and child development, testified that she had been the

caseworker for the case involving respondent and Kathleen C.'s

three grandchildren since August 1997, and had recently been

assigned as the social worker to the instant case involving April,

Amy, and Anna.  She testified that the foster parent of the

grandchildren had told her that respondent had been showing up

outside the grandchildren's day care.  In one instance, respondent

approached the foster parent's car.  The foster parent reported

that the children had suffered emotional problems after seeing respondent.

	Handalman recommended that it would be in the best interest of

the children in the instant case to be placed under the

guardianship of DCFS.  She did not believe it would be in the

children's best interests to be in an environment where respondent

was living.  Her opinion was based on her belief that respondent

was the person who broke Jacoba's leg, the allegations of physical

abuse against April, Amy, and Anna, and the fear she has seen in

both the children and grandchildren regarding respondent.

	Molly Ann Ruiz-C., the 28-year-old daughter of respondent,

testified over the objection of the attorneys for both parents. 

The court, in allowing Molly's testimony, noted that although the

evidence was being admitted, it would not consider her testimony if

it later proved to be irrelevant or its probative nature was

outweighed by its prejudicial nature.  Molly testified that when

she was around three years old, respondent began to touch her in

inappropriate places.  He would fondle her, put his fingers in her

vagina, and put his penis between her legs and movetion up and down. 

This happened a number of times and Molly recalled one instance

where it hurt a lot.  Molly testified that her mother (who was not

Kathleen C.) knew what respondent was doing to her but did nothing

about it.  Respondent moved out when she was about six years old. 

Respondent was physically abusive to her, her siblings, and her

mother.  Respondent would come back for visits after he moved out

and would touch her, but, according to Molly, she knew better by then and he would stop.

	Molly left home at age 13 and subsequently had 9 children and

serious problems with drugs.  She was 28 years old at the time of

the dispositional hearing and had been drug free for two years. 

While attempting to recover from her drug problems, she had asked

respondent and Kathleen C. to care for her three children

Guandensio, Angelica, and Jacoba.  At the time, she thought

respondent may have changed due to his religious beliefs and she

liked Kathleen C.  Kathleen C. was not Molly's mother, but she

treated the kids like they were her own grandchildren.

	The Reverend LeRoy Yates testified on behalf of Kathleen C.

that he was a minister, professional counselor at the Westside

Holistic Family Center, and had a master's degree in psychotherapy. 

Kathleen C. and respondent came to him in July 1997 for counseling

help.  They were not referred to him by DCFS.  In counseling, he

worked with Kathleen C. in helping her to understand the need to

protect the children from respondent in cases where things got out

of control.  Yates believed that Kathleen C. would be willing to do

whatever was necessary to protect the children and testified that

she had become more forceful in taking charge of decision-making in

the family.  He concluded that Kathleen C. had the skills to be a

fit parent for the children.

	At the request of Lysa Seghetti, Yates prepared progress

reports from time to time.  She would also notify him when

staffings in the case were to take place and he would attend.

	Reverend Yates acknowledged that he had met the children only

in passing.  According to Yates, respondent believed that he

accidently injured Jacoba during toilet-training and Kathleen C.

was not sure what happened.

	Reverend Yates believed that Kathleen C. was much better

equipped to take care of the family following therapy, because she

had learned to protect the children and to be more "hands-on."  He

stated that Kathleen C. had acknowledged that respondent had gotten

physical with her in the past but he was not aware of any incidents

of battery during the period he had been counseling the couple. 

Yates testified that, in his opinion, a battered woman is someone

who has been beaten black and blue or someone who may have

fractures.  He was not aware that an Under the Rainbow report from

June 1997 had described Kathleen C. as someone who appeared to be

a battered wife who refused to leave her current situation. 

Reverend Yates stated that Kathleen C. told him she could manage

the family on her own and would leave respondent if necessary.

	Reverend Yates stated that he did not believe the children

needed to be protected from respondent.  Yates had worked with

respondent on anger-management issues.  Yates acknowledged that

respondent had admitted sexually abusing Molly during her childhood

but Yates did not pursue that admission in therapy because he was

primarily focusing on the current family.  Reverend Yates did not

mention the sexual abuse of Molly in any of his reports concerning

his treatment of respondent and Kathleen C. aside from noting that respondent's second marriage was "a disaster."

	Reverend Yates testified that the family was caring and normal

and had high potential for reunification.  He acknowledged,

however, that it was not normal for a family to have issues of

domestic violence, incest, and a broken bone caused by a caretaker.

	On cross-examination, Reverend Yates acknowledged that he was

not a licensed clinical social worker and was not State certified.

	Dvorsky testified that in addition to counseling through DCFS

referrals, respondent and Kathleen C. began counseling with

Reverend Leroy Yates of the Westside Holistic Family Center in July

1997.  Respondent and Kathleen C. found Reverend Yates on their own

and were not referred to him by DCFS.  Dvorsky testified that

Hephzibah, upon examining psychological evaluations tendered by

Yates, determined that he was not qualified to provide respondent

and Kathleen C. with the counseling services that they needed. 

Dvorsky testified that Yates had participated in several staffings

at Hephzibah and had tendered reports on the case.  Yates had noted

in a September 1997 report submitted to Hephzibah that respondent

and Kathleen C. were cooperative, were learning how to communicate

and listen, and were finding new ways to solve problems and live

together peacefully.  The report concluded that if the family

continued to cooperate with the counseling process, in time they

may grow into an adjusted, functional family.  In a May 9, 1998,

document prepared for Hephzibah by Yates, he indicated that

respondent and Kathleen C. were making progress in counseling and concluded that continuing to postpone reunification of the family

would be unwise.

	Seghetti testified that she had spoken with Leroy Yates

approximately a dozen times over the past two years.  Seghetti

believed that Yates minimized the allegations contained in the

petitions for adjudication of wardship.  She believed Yates had

simply accepted what respondent told him happened and had failed to

consider the best interests of the children.  Seghetti testified

that Yates was a pastor and that his reports in the case did not

comport with the usual standards of therapy and scientific analysis

and protocols.  Based on things respondent and Yates had said in

the past, Seghetti believed Yates had told respondent and Kathleen

C. that DCFS was involved in conspiracies designed to take children

away from their families.  Yates also passed on to respondent and

Kathleen C. some sensitive and confidential information revealed by

the children's therapist in a June 1998 staffing.

	After hearing the evidence, the court made extensive findings

and held that respondent and Kathleen C. were both unable,

unwilling, and unfit.  The court adjudged the children wards of the

court and ordered that the children be placed in the guardianship

of DCFS.

	Respondent now appeals the circuit court's adjudication of

wardship, contending that the court's finding that he was unfit,

unable, and unwilling was against the manifest weight of the

evidence and that the court erred in allowing the testimony of Molly C.

	In addition to briefs filed by the State and respondent, we note that the Cook County public guardian, as guardian ad litem for April, Amy, and Anna, has filed a brief urging that the trial

court's order be affirmed.

	Respondent first contends that the trial court's decision

finding him unwilling, unable, and unfit to parent his daughters

was against the manifest weight of the evidence.  Specifically,

respondent argues that the court's finding was not supported by the

evidence because he had completed all of the tasks and conditions

assigned to him by DCFS and had even sought out additional

counseling help.

	The petitions in this case were asking that April, Amy, and

Anna be adjudicated wards of the court.  Pursuant to section 2-27

of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, a minor may be adjudged a ward

of the court and custody taken away from the parents where it is

determined that the parents are either unfit or unable, for some

reason other than financial circumstances alone, to care for,

protect, train or discipline a minor or are unwilling to do so. 

705 ILCS 405/2-27(1) (West 1998); In re Lakita B., 297 Ill. App. 3d 985, 992, 697 N.E.2d 830 (1998).  The standard of proof in a trial

court's section 2-27 finding of unfitness that does not result in

a complete termination of all parental rights is a preponderance of

the evidence.  In re Lakita B., 297 Ill. App. 3d at 994.  "On review, the trial court's determination will be reversed only if the findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the

evidence or if the trial court committed an abuse of discretion by

selecting an inappropriate dispositional order."  In re T.B., 215 Ill. App. 3d 1059, 1062, 574 N.E.2d 893 (1991).  A finding is

against the manifest weight of the evidence where a review of the

record clearly demonstrates that the result opposite to that

reached by the trial court was the proper result.  In re T.B., 215 Ill. App. 3d at 1062.  Because a trial court is in a superior

position to assess the credibility of witnesses and weigh the

evidence, a reviewing court will not overturn the trial court's

findings merely because the reviewing court may have reached a

different decision.  In re Lakita B., 297 Ill. App. 3d at 994.

	While arguing that the record shows he performed all services

requested of him, respondent acknowledges that "the record is

replete with caseworker opinions that [respondent] made no progress

and was not a fit parent."  The record is indeed replete with such

opinions.  Where the record contains more than ample evidence

supporting the trial court's finding, respondent's argument that

the finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence is

unpersuasive.

	The question before the trial court was not whether respondent

had participated in recommended services.  As set forth above, the

court, through the dispositional hearing, was attempting to

determine whether the children should be adjudged wards of the

court on the basis that respondent and Kathleen C. were unfit or unable, for some reason other than financial circumstances alone,

to care for, protect, train, or discipline the minors or were

unwilling to do so, and that it was in the best interest of the

minors to take them from the custody of their parents.  705 ILCS

405/2-27(1) (West 1998).

	There is no question that respondent committed acts of abuse

against children in his care.  In fact, respondent entered into a

stipulation acknowledging that he had been the perpetrator of acts

of physical abuse and excessive corporal punishment and that the

children were at a substantial risk of injury.  The evidence showed

that respondent committed various acts of physical abuse against

the children in the home, including breaking a bone of one of the

grandchildren during potty training, grabbing Anna by the neck, and

whipping April, Amy, and Anna with a board, belt, or hand whenever

they got into "trouble."  We note that other instances of abuse not

specifically referred to in testimony during the dispositional

hearing are noted in various reports entered into evidence.  For

example, one report notes that Amy reported to her school teacher

that her father had twisted her ankle "because she had been bad

that weekend."

	Subsequent to the findings of abuse, respondent participated

in various recommended services.  However, respondent's

participation in the various recommended services does not mean

that a disposition other than that entered by the trial court would

be in the best interests of the children.  In fact, the record contains almost no support for the proposition that reunification

with respondent would be in the children's best interests. 

Instead, three different caseworkers involved in the case testified

that it was in the best interests of the children to be made wards

of the court.  They opined, inter alia, that respondent had not received all of the services necessary to make the home environment

safe with him present, that respondent did not have his anger

issues under control, and that Kathleen C. did not have the ability

to protect the children from him.  Nor, aside from reports made by

Reverend Yates, do any of the reports, assessments, and other

documentary exhibits entered in this case recommend that it was in

the children's best interests to be in the custody of respondent. 

For example, the September 1997 bonding assessment recommended that

the girls not be returned home due to the psychological issues

affecting each parent.  The assessment noted, among other things,

that respondent became hostile at one point during the interview,

which raised "immediate concerns of his impulsiveness and limited

judgment with regards to anger management."  A March 1999 transfer

summary from Hephzibah completed just prior to the dispositional

hearing stated that "[a]t this time, it does not seem as though

reunification is possible. [Respondent and Kathleen C.] have made

minimal progress in therapy and continue to blame others as to why

the children are in care.  Also, the children's behaviors escalate

surrounding parental visitation and they have appeared fearful of

their father and untrusting of their mother." 

	It should be noted that respondent's participation in the

recommended services was often less than satisfactory.  Further,

contrary to respondent's contention, the record also reveals that

not all of the recommended services were completed and in some

cases were not even started.

	Although respondent participated in a bonding assessment in

September 1997, the assessment described him as "minimally

cooperative" and "resistant, guarded, and defensive."  In

supervised visitations with April, Amy, and Anna, it was observed

that the children seemed emotionally flat and afraid of respondent. 

Respondent engaged in inappropriate behavior during visitation,

such as whispering to the girls, which resulted in negative effects

in the girls' behavior upon returning to the foster home. 

Visitation deteriorated to the point that three workers were

required to be present at the supervised visitations to prevent

respondent and Kathleen C. from whispering to the girls. 

Respondent had become volatile and threatening toward caseworkers

during visitation, resulting, on one occasion, in a Hephzibah

employee calling the police and visitation being suspended for four

weeks.

	Respondent wore sunglasses and slept through much of the first

parenting class he and Kathleen C. attended.  The first attempt at

family therapy had been terminated due in part to respondent's

attitude and inappropriate behavior.  The second attempt at family

therapy, in which respondent was not involved, ended in part due to inappropriate behavior on the part of Kathleen C., and in part

because the therapist believed the girls were not comfortable

bringing forth any issues to Kathleen C. out of fear she would tell

respondent.

	Although respondent maintains he was not referred for services

that may have helped him, like domestic violence counseling or

psychotropic medications, the record reveals otherwise.  Upon being

referred for domestic violence counseling in January 1999,

respondent informed Seghetti that he needed to confer with his

attorney regarding the referral.  At the time of the dispositional

hearing, respondent had failed to get back to Seghetti regarding

the referral.  Seghetti also testified that respondent had failed

to follow through on a referral for a neuropsychological

examination, and she did not know if he had followed through on a

second referral for a neuropsychological examination made in

December 1998.  Seghetti also referred respondent for a psychiatric

follow-up examination in early February of 1999.  Seghetti

testified that she had not received any indication that respondent

had followed through with the referral.

	There was also evidence that respondent had not yet gotten his

anger issues under control.  In addition to incidents mentioned

above, including respondent's threatening and hostile behavior

toward caseworkers during visitation, Lysa Seghetti testified that

respondent approached her in court in an aggressive and threatening

manner and a sheriff was called to intervene.

	Finally, there was evidence that respondent's progress was

impeded by his belief that all of the professionals involved in the

case, with the exception of Reverend Yates, were part of a

conspiracy to prevent the children from returning home. 

	In sum, the circuit court's finding that respondent was

unable, unwilling, and unfit to care for April, Amy, and Anna was

not against the manifest weight of the evidence.  The fact that

respondent participated in various recommended services does not

persuade us that the trial court's decision was against the

manifest weight of the evidence where there was ample evidence that

respondent continues to be a threat to the children's safety and

has not made sufficient progress in a number of areas.

	Respondent next maintains that the trial court erred in

allowing the testimony of Molly C. regarding alleged sexual abuse

by respondent when she was a minor.  According to respondent, where

the alleged sexual abuse of Molly took place over 20 years ago, it

could not aid the court in determining whether respondent could

parent the children in the instant case.

	Respondent cites no case law in support of his contention that

the testimony of Molly C. should not have been allowed, and instead

attempts to factually distinguish In re J.H., 212 Ill. App. 3d 22, 570 N.E.2d 689 (1991), the case cited by the circuit court in

ruling that it was going to allow Molly's testimony.  In In re J.H., the respondent father contended that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence portions of a social investigation report relating to sexual abuse where the petition for adjudication was

based on dependency.  On appeal, the court found the information

concerning respondent's alleged sexual abuse was relevant and

admissible because it impacted such issues as possible

reunification of the respondent and his children.  In re J.H., 212 Ill. App. 3d at 27-28.  In the instant case, respondent argues that

In re J.H. is inapplicable because the sexual abuse in that case concerned a named minor and the abuse was more contemporary.  Here,

Molly was not a named minor and the alleged abuse occurred over 20

years ago.

	Under the Juvenile Court Act, "proof of the abuse, neglect or

dependency of one minor shall be admissible evidence on the issue

of the abuse, neglect or dependency of any other minor for whom the

respondent is responsible."  705 ILCS 405/2-18(3) (West 1998).  We

find respondent's attempt to distinguish In re J.H. to be unpersuasive because relevant and admissible evidence under the

above section is not limited to minors who are part of the same

family unit or to contemporary instances of abuse.  See In re Harpman, 146 Ill. App. 3d 504, 513-14, 496 N.E.2d 1242 (1986) (where evidence of respondent father's sexual abuse of daughters by

a prior marriage established two years earlier was found admissible

in a dispositional hearing regarding wardship of children in

current marriage despite fact that there was no direct evidence of

sexual abuse of children in current marriage); see also In re Edricka C., 276 Ill. App. 3d 18, 30, 657 N.E.2d 78 (1995) (holding that past sibling abuse was admissible, although it was, by itself,

insufficient to show that abuse and neglect were imminent for child

at issue).  

	Moreover, section 2-22(1) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987

states, in pertinent part:

		"At the dispositional hearing, the court shall

determine whether it is in the best interests

of the minor and the public that he be made a

ward of the court, and, if he is to be made a

ward of the court, the court shall determine

the proper disposition best serving the ***

interests of the minor and the public. *** All

evidence helpful in determining these

questions, including oral and written reports,

may be admitted and may be relied upon to the

extent of its probative value, even though not

competent for the purposes of the adjudicatory

hearing."  705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 1998).

It was the legislature's intent, through the above section, to give

the trial court wide latitude in considering evidence that is

relevant and helpful to the court's determination of a proper

disposition.  See In re J.H., 212 Ill. App. 3d at 27; In re White, 103 Ill. App. 3d 105, 111, 429 N.E.2d 1383 (1982).

	Although an examination at Under the Rainbow when the children

were first taken into custody revealed no evidence of sexual abuse, we cannot say, upon the record before us, and given the wide

latitude given a trial court to consider evidence in dispositional

hearings, that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of

Molly C.  Molly's testimony was relevant and helpful to the trial

court in that it raised concerns that the children in the instant

case may have been the victims of sexual abuse or were at risk of

becoming victims of sexual abuse if not protected from respondent. 

By the time the testimony of Molly became an issue at the

dispositional hearing, there had been evidence presented that Anna

had acted out sexually in the foster home by asking who was going

to pat her vagina, masturbating, and attempting to involve another

younger child in masturbation.  That fact was acknowledged by the

trial court where, in ruling that it was going to allow Molly's

testimony, it noted that evidence had already been entered that

Anna had acted out sexually in the foster home.  The record also

contains evidence that the children's therapist suspected that the

children had been sexually abused.  Finally, subsequent to Molly

C.'s testimony, Reverend Yates testified that respondent had

admitted to him that he had sexually abused Molly when she was a

minor.  Molly's testimony was admissible and relevant to a

determination regarding whether April, Amy, and Anna should be made

wards of the court, and the trial court did not err in allowing the

testimony.

	Assuming, arguendo, we were to find that the testimony had been improperly admitted, respondent has failed to show that he was prejudiced by that admission.  "As a general rule, error in the

exclusion or admission of evidence is harmless and does not require

reversal if there has been no prejudice or if the evidence has not

materially affected the outcome of the trial."  Phillips v. Britton, 162 Ill. App. 3d 774, 786, 516 N.E.2d 692 (1987).  Aside from a general assertion that the trial court "attached much

significance" to Molly's testimony, respondent makes no argument

that he was prejudiced by the admission of her testimony.  We

disagree with respondent's characterization of the court's ruling. 

The court's findings of fact and ruling in this case are set forth

in 20 pages of transcript in the record.  Aside from briefly

describing Molly's testimony and making a finding that she was

credible, the trial court in no way emphasized her testimony in its

ruling and made no findings of sexual abuse whatsoever. 

Considering the ample evidence (discussed previously) supporting

the trial court's finding that respondent was unfit, unable, and

unwilling to parent the children, we cannot say that the admission

of Molly C.'s testimony affected the outcome of the hearing.

	Accordingly, the findings and orders of the circuit court are

affirmed.

	Affirmed.

	BURKE, P.J., and CAHILL, ANDand GORDON, JJ., concur.